letter to the Times:

[AllenLowe]

I just emailed this letter to the NY Times, Arts and Leisure:

to the editor:

Terrence Rafferty's recent review of Bruce Weber's Chet Baker film Let's Get Lost shows a surprising ignorance of Baker's talent and late music, not to mention Baker's continued reputation. To say, as Rafferty does, that "his talent, though real, was thin. Unlike his rival Miles Davis, he persisted, with a stubbornness that suggests a fairly serious failure of imagination, in playing the cool style long past the point at which it had begun to sound mannered and even a little silly" is to show virtually no awareness of the development of Baker's music. Not only did his whole approach, from the dynamics of his performance to his musical attack, evolve in real if sometimes relatively subtle ways, but his reputation was/is intact among historians and fans of the music. I remember running into the great alto saxophonist Herb Geller in Germany, not long after Baker had died. Geller talked about a late concert at which "Chet could only play one octave, but it was unlike anybody else's octave." Chet Baker's sound and means of expression remained unique and wondrous to the end; his playing, from the 1960s on, took on a new and more aggressive character and a deeper, darker lyricism. Rafferty has apparently done everything except listen to the actual music.

sincerely,

Allen Lowe

Edited June 3, 2007 by AllenLowe

[brownie]

Excellent letter.

Now let's see if the Times deems it fit to print!

[AllenLowe]

I hope so - I am continually amazed at how backward some of the Times's cultural writing is. They did, a few years back, print a letter I wrote attacking Marsalis and Crouch, so there is a decent possibility they'll use this one.

[Larry Kart]

Excellent letter, hope they print it.

In the same vein, after someone posted Rafferty's article on another board yesterday, I posted this:

Mr. Rafferty says some inaccurate, foolish things in his piece about Chet Baker

and the film "Let's Get Lost."

1) "Chet Baker hadn't mattered for a while when Mr. Weber was filming him [in

the late 1980s].... He's practically forgotten now."

Mattered to whom? Messed up though he was, Baker remained a significant draw in

Europe until the end and arguably was a better trumpet player in his later years

(when he was in decent physical shape, and sometimes when he was not -- the

recorded evidence is considerable). As for "practically forgotten now," that is

absurd. Baker recordings proliferate, and how could a "practically forgotten"

figure be the subject of a fairly recent and successful (though IMO mostly in

terms of favorable reviews) biography, to which Rafferty himself refers, James

Gavin's "Deep In A Dream"?

2) "Jazz history hasn't been kind to him; his talent, though real, was thin.

Unlike his rival Miles Davis, he persisted, with a stubbornness that suggests a

fairly serious failure of imagination, in playing the cool style long past the

point at which it had begun to sound mannered and even a little silly."

Where does one begin? Leaving aside the dubious/snotty opinions here, most jazz

writers regard Baker's music more positively now than at any point in his life

-- in part because some of them, as mentioned above, find the best of his later

work to be more mature than his early work, in part because the notion of Baker

as a necessarily inferior "rival" to Miles Davis is now seen as a relic both of

a somewhat understandable but thoughtless Crow Jim-ism and of the assumption

that Baker was little more than a pretty-boy jazz matinee idol. Musicians knew

better. Miles was Miles, and Chet was Chet -- both quite individual figures, nor

does the evidence suggests that Baker was heavily influenced by Davis.

3) "Mr. Baker isn't so much the subject of this picture as its pretext: He's the

front man for Mr. Weber's meditations on image making and its discontents. If

you want the true story of Chet Baker, you'd do better to look up James Gavin's

superb, harrowing 2002 biography, 'Deep in a Dream: The Long Night of Chet

Baker,' where you can also find, in the words of a pianist named Hal Galper,

perhaps the most perceptive review of Mr. Weber's slippery movie. 'I thought it

was great,' Mr. Galper says, 'because it was so jive. Everybody's lying,

including Chet. You couldn't have wanted a more honest reflection of him.'

That's 'Let's Get Lost,' to the life: the greatest jive movie, or maybe the

jivest great movie, ever made."

I agree that "Let's Get Lost" is a jive movie, and that Baker serves as a

pretext for Bruce Weber's... I would say "manipulations" rather than

"meditations." In fact, the best part of James Gavin's otherwise rather

ill-informed "Deep In A Dream" is his takedown of Weber, whose character and

milieu he seems to know and care (albeit in a hostile way) far more about than

he does about the life, art, and times of Chet Baker. Rather than "Deep In A

Dream," you'd do better to read Jeroen de Valk's "Chet Baker: His Life and

Music" (Berkeley Hills Books). BTW, the by no means uncritical de Valk writes

that the 2-CD set "Chet Baker in Tokyo" (Evidence), recorded in 1987, one year

before Baker's death, is "his best recording ever." Baker also is in remarkable

form on 2-CD set "The Last Concert" (Enja), which was recorded less than a month

(!) before his death.

[Teasing the Korean]

What prompted the review in the first place? Has "Let's Get Lost" finally come out on DVD?

[Claude]

Film Forum, which gave the movie its New York premiere 18 years ago, is reviving it for a three-week run (beginning Friday) in a restored 35-millimeter print, and Mr. Weber’s black-and-white hipster fantasia is as beautiful, and as nutty, as ever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/movies/03raff.html?_r=1

http://www.filmforum.org/films/letsgetlost.html

According to Weber, the film, long out-of-print on home video, will be released on DVD in December 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Get_Lost_(film)

Edited June 3, 2007 by Claude

[pasta]

just read the times article. very stupid article. very.

[gslade]

Nice letter Allen

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

so the times never gets jazz stories right? because i always read the arts section and their articles on other types of arts are sometimes really amazing

[clifford_thornton]

Ehh... sometimes.

[Jim R]

I just emailed this letter to the NY Times, Arts and Leisure:

to the editor:

Terrence Rafferty's recent review of Bruce Weber's Chet Baker film Let's Get Lost shows a surprising ignorance of Baker's talent and late music, not to mention Baker's continued reputation. To say, as Rafferty does, that "his talent, though real, was thin. Unlike his rival Miles Davis, he persisted, with a stubbornness that suggests a fairly serious failure of imagination, in playing the cool style long past the point at which it had begun to sound mannered and even a little silly" is to show virtually no awareness of the development of Baker's music. Not only did his whole approach, from the dynamics of his performance to his musical attack, evolve in real if sometimes relatively subtle ways, but his reputation was/is intact among historians and fans of the music. I remember running into the great alto saxophonist Herb Geller in Germany, not long after Baker had died. Geller talked about a late concert at which "Chet could only play one octave, but it was unlike anybody else's octave." Chet Baker's sound and means of expression remained unique and wondrous to the end; his playing, from the 1960s on, took on a new and more aggressive character and a deeper, darker lyricism. Rafferty has apparently done everything except listen to the actual music.

sincerely,

Allen Lowe

I've tried to express these sentiments on various CB threads on various bulletin boards over the years, but I've never quite said it that well. "Chet Baker's sound and means of expression remained unique and wondrous to the end; his playing, from the 1960s on, took on a new and more aggressive character and a deeper, darker lyricism." Beautiful. Thanks, Allen.

I pity impostors/pretenders like Rafferty. Fortunately, the truth is always available to those who have enough interest and intelligence to think for themselves.

[T.D.]

so the times never gets jazz stories right? because i always read the arts section and their articles on other types of arts are sometimes really amazing

I rarely read the Times any more (moved away from NYC area), but I recall plenty of classical and opera reviews that were totally wacky.

[Joe G]

This thread has reminded me of having heard some of a late Chet Baker trio recording on the radio several years ago. Trumpet-bass-guitar. The guitarist had a unique, very clear, very beautiful tone and style. Does anyone know what recording this would be?

[Claude]

This evening I watched a DVD with a Chet concert from April 1988 in Germany. At that point, his playing was technically limited and very sparse, but every note was right on spot, and the atmosphere was very intense.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chet-Baker-Torino-.../dp/B000GNOLWO/

[Larry Kart]

There are three excellent Baker Steeplechase CDs -- This Is Always, Someday My Prince Will Come, and Daybreak -- recorded at one (!) concert in 1979 with Niels-Henning Orsted Pederson and Doug Raney, and another Steeplechase album by the same band in 1979 in the studio, The Touch of Your Lips. There are also several trio albums with Philip Catherine and Jean-Louis-Rasinfosse, one on Igloo, one on Dreyfus, and two others with Catherine and a bassist (not sure who), one on Criss Cross, the other on Enja. You probably can find samples of Catherine and Raney on the 'Net to see which one it is -- they sound very different. My guess, from what you say, is that it's Raney.

[Joe G]

Thank you, Larry.

[paul secor]

Considering its status as the most important newspaper in the country - not my opinion - the Times has some of the most wrong-headed, boring, ignorant, jive-ass (I could keep going, but pick one or more) writing on popular music, including jazz, that you would never want to read. Their entire popular music staff should be canned.

[Chuck Nessa]

Considering its status as the most important newspaper in the country - not my opinion - the Times has some of the most wrong-headed, boring, ignorant, jive-ass (I could keep going, but pick one or more) writing on popular music, including jazz, that you would never want to read. Their entire popular music staff should be canned.

The classical staff sould be canned too.

[alocispepraluger102]

Considering its status as the most important newspaper in the country - not my opinion - the Times has some of the most wrong-headed, boring, ignorant, jive-ass (I could keep going, but pick one or more) writing on popular music, including jazz, that you would never want to read. Their entire popular music staff should be canned.

The classical staff sould be canned too.

Edited June 3, 2007 by alocispepraluger102

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

can someone post the pic from the times arts today of that computer rendering of that new concert all, from page 1 of the section?

[Chuck Nessa]

can someone post the pic from the times arts today of that computer rendering of that new concert all, from page 1 of the section?

This one?

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

yea yea yea!

[AllenLowe]

yeah, what can I do - two places you won't see me are the NY TImes and Litchfield (sorry Jim) -

it's funny, but about 40 years ago my old friend, the late Richard GIlman, wrote something to the effect that, if something is covered in the NY Times arts section it had already come and gone as a trend or as an interesting object of study -

Edited June 4, 2007 by AllenLowe

[paul secor]

Allen - It's not necessarily a good thing to have a letter published in the Times. About 20 years ago, I wrote a letter to the Times replying to a column in the sports section about Steve Howe and his drug abuse problem. They printed my letter, but edited it so that it appeared that I said the exact opposite of what I had written, making me look like a complete idiot - or at least a bigger idiot than I sometimes am. I wrote a letter of complaint to the editor, asking them to print my letter as it was written, but I never got a reply or the satisfaction of seeing the original letter in print. I learned a valuable lesson from that.

[AllenLowe]

risky perhaps...

my letter is nice and short, so hopefully, if they use it, they won't edit it. On the other hand, I have a feeling they may get lots of letters about the article, so someone else's may get published.

I figure, if they use it, at least I get my name in the paper...

fortunately, I signed it "Love, Scott Yanow"